Tim wrote:
Michael Cronenworth:
>> Nope. It has everything to do with booting. Some packages in /bin
>> depended on libs in /usr/lib{64} so calling the init script
They should not. IMO, boot should depend only upon these directories
being present:
/
/boot
/bin
/sbin
/lib
/etc
/root
The /usr file system should not be necessary for boot. Any libraries
which executables in /bin and /sbin depend upon should be in /lib.
The libraries in /usr/lib should serve the executables in /usr/bin
and /usr/sbin, which are not needed by executables in /bin and /sbin.
[...]
I'd always been able to put /usr on a separate partition, and it
was a
long standing recommendation (to use separate partitions for home, opt
var, usr, tmp), since you could mount them with different parameters, or
different file systems, or even on individual disc drives, for optimum
performance. Not to mention additional protection against accidents.
[...]
And, as I recall, the boot process is not supposed to depend on
something that might be on an unmounted partition. And usr being one of
the partitions that doesn't have to be present. You end up making it
impossible, or problematic to boot up in single mode, to do maintenance
on a system. It looks like someone's done something dumb in 64-bit
land.
I heartily agree.
If you look at /usr/bin in the FSH*, it's presence is not
supposed to be
required to boot (in single mode), and /usr/lib holds files
that /usr/bin might want. So, requiring /usr/lib* anything, just to
boot, ought to be an error.
Yep.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!